DWLegacy Wiki talk:Spoilers policy
__TOC__ Request to update the spoiler policy In response to the Season 8 spoiler discussion and especially this post, I would like to update the spoiler policy. I have written a draft of it (which is below the list of changes). For the most part it has the same limitation as the old one with the following changes: #I explicitly stated that datamining is leaked content and therefore not allowed. #I removed the mentioning of closed beta. It is imo unnecessary, because depending on how it is done it should either fall into unreleased or leaked content and doesn't need a separate category. #I removed the spoiler technicalities, because they imo only detract from the policy and Alpha changed the template to include the collabsible stuff automatically, so there aren't really needed any more. (Though maybe it wouldn't hurt to have that information somewhere else.) #I removed the story category. This one is surely questionable, and if it is needed it can be added like before. But I think it is rather strange: #*Basically every page can be considered to contain story information. For example all level pages could be seen as spoiler, since they contain story information (e.g. what enemies will be faced there, the dialogue contained or companions that will join you on your journey). Applying this correctly would massively reduce the usability of this wiki. (To compare it with the Tardis wiki: Information from released stories isn't considered as a spoiler, and I think that is a simple and easy rule to apply.) #I thought about it, and we should follow the Tardis wiki and forbid images of unreleased content: #*Uploaded photos just show up in the and on the "Photos" section that is embedded in all article pages. Basically any uploaded image that shows a spoiler will just be seen by any user whether he wants it or not. #*'EDIT': I undo'ed this change, since consensus doesn't seem to support it. Please post your opinion what you think about the changes I want to make and the draft I have written. In regards to spoilers the DWLegacy Wiki uses the following policy: *'Released Content': Any content that is accessible to regular players, whether through normal play, codes or the Fan Area, is considered released and can be freely used to improve the Wiki. *'Unreleased/Announced Content': Any content that is not accessible in-game but that is officially announced by the developers can be included only if it follows the rules for spoiler pages outlined below. This includes any statement made officially on public platforms like the official website, the newsletter, twitch announcements or various social media sources. *'Leaked Content': Any content that isn't released or announced is strictly forbidden, no matter what source it originates from. Examples for this would be information obtained through coding errors, cheat codes or datamining. Leaked content is not allowed and will be removed immediately. Rules for spoiler pages If an article is considered to be a spoiler, it must follow these rules: * A spoiler tag must be added at the top of the page. A spoiler tag can be added by typing at the beginning of the article. * All spoiler must be contained within collapsible paragraphs. automatically does this. * A spoiler article belongs to Category:Upcoming or possible other spoiler related categories but not to regular categories. For example an upcoming companion doesn't belong to Category:Companions ThatDWLguy (talk) 08:02, August 11, 2014 (UTC) Discussion about the image situation. from [[Thread:7229#34]] I see your point in that, but I don't really like the part about making unreleased visual content forbidden. The images we share are shown almost everywhere on official pages and it's kinda the point that we collect them in one place for easy access. Leaving the s8 stuff aside (but I think that TRG will choose upcoming visual content to show carefully, not to spoil too much of the series anyway), upcoming game content is not spoilery enough to... I don't know, ruin the game for someone? Situation on TARDIS wiki is a bit different and needs different rules. Making the spoiler pages text-only would make them way less useful. The rest seems to be fine to me. KungWho (talk) 10:30, August 11, 2014 (UTC) I certainly understand that concern KungWho. But I don't really understand the point about having collapsible boxes + warning for spoilered content, if we "flood" the wiki with un-collapsible spoiler images without warning. So imo we should either remove the need for the spoiler tags (or at least reduce the warning and get rid of the collapsible) and just basically say "you have navigated to that article, so you are fine with seeing the content" or forbid images, because it is kinda strange that we put effort into preventing to easily access the information that say "Tricey is in Greayhound One" yet every wiki user sees the "Tricey Image". Both is imo the same degree of unreleased/spoilered content, yet currently one is hidden, while the other is in plain sight. Or other way around: if the images are not spoilery enough, why do we even need collapsible spoiler boxes for the other stuff? ThatDWLguy (talk) 10:50, August 11, 2014 (UTC) Good in theory but ridiculous to police, I would leave it as it is due to practical reasons. The spoiler tag and collaspible function is a request from the community, hence they will stay. Alpha1812 (talk) 15:48, August 11, 2014 (UTC) I don't really now what would be ridiculous to police about it. Yeah it would probable be a rather hard change, but once the community gets used to it it shouldn't be hard. But since both of you seem to be fine with this, I will change the draft to reflect that. Yet I find it really strange to treat some spoilers as "needs to be hidden" and some as "will be shown everywhere". ThatDWLguy (talk) 17:09, August 11, 2014 (UTC) Sometimes you undersestimate things, it is just not practical to leave out the pictures, the wikia is run by the community, if the day to day editors don't add them, eventually some anon user will do it, Since admins are the only ones who can delete things around here, it becomes a problem since we only got 3 active admins (sometimes fewer as FiveofEight doesn't come in everyday and I have decided not to touch the spoilers any more) and we can't be here all day babysit the whole thing. It is an issue we can live with, Besides people tend to prefer things as they are, in my experience, people tend to make more complaints if things get removed. Finally don't you have better things to do than arguing about these issues all day, you are the only editor with over 100 edits who made fewer than 50% edits in the mainspace, files, categories or templates. EDIT: saw your edit, forget what i said Alpha1812 (talk) 17:41, August 11, 2014 (UTC) I have stated my opinion, you have stated yours, I have even agreed that my opinion is in the minority and you still want to bash me? I don't know what you want to intend with that, but I can say that I don't think that your behavior is a good way to try to end a conversation (if that is what you want). just to say: anon's can't even upload files... I don't want to continue that discussion, but maybe you are interested that your information isn't correct. And just to make sure: I saw your EDIT (though I wrote the above before that), but I still wanted to add this, because I have the feeling that you could/should be way more friendly to other users. I probably made a fair share of errors since I started here (though at least I think that my contributions here were a net positive), but when I read some of your posts I sometime question myself why I'm still here. (That doesn't show always, but I often have the feelings that you are the ruler of this wiki and the opinion of other peoples here doesn't even count.) Maybe this post is over the top and I do you injustice with it, but after reading your reply I just needed to get this out of my system. ThatDWLguy (talk) 18:20, August 11, 2014 (UTC) Calm down, I only saw you saying you were going to change the policy before you make the second edit about you will undo the pictures , hence I explained it again, also I added "EDIT: saw your edit, forget what i said" afterwards. Alpha1812 (talk) 12:47, August 12, 2014 (UTC) What to do with WIP (Work in Progress)? So recently a discussion started with the uploading of the WIP of The Fourth Doctor's image. The question is, should this issue be settled now and just added to spoiler police? Should we allow or disallow WIP (or only handle it case by case)? KungWho wants to disallow WIP, while I'm on the fence, with the tendency to allow it, but I think in all cases we should establish a rule here, so either clearly allow WIP or clearly disallow WIP. So, any other opinions on that matter? possible problem is "what exactly is WIP", but at least the 4th image shown was clearly said to be unfinished/WIP ThatDWLguy (talk) 15:29, August 19, 2014 (UTC) I think the fourth doctor is a special case, it wasn't just WIP, it was also meant to be an opinion poll for the viewers on that day, they mentioned something along that line on that stream. I know we usually publish photos from that stream but there are other things we need to consider, due to that nature it was more of an opinion poll rather than an actal release. I am in favour of not releasing the photo. As for WIP in general, I think we can't use a single rule, there are too many possiblity I propose we setup something like a comittee to decide on a case by case basis. The content in question will be removed temporarily, then we have a vote depending on the number of people who is active at the time, people who has uploaded at least 100 files or made 100 mainspace edits or a combination of both can cast a vote, if we can reach a majority verdict, we take the approriate action. if we can't, we count the admin's votes only, if we still can't reach a verdict, we ask Susan and Lee. Alpha1812 (talk) 16:10, August 19, 2014 (UTC) I wouldn't go as far as saying that I want to disallow it. I would prefer to stick with case by case basis as well, I just stated that maybe disallowing them altogether is not a bad idea knowing that you like to have a set of fixed rules. So if we really need to have some simple and easy to use rule then to forbid is a better option than to not. And with stating that adi stream is semi-official I meant only that Susan and Lee are using it more personally than they do when representing the company on the official game pages. Also, they're adi guests. The situation with Lee talking with people on Gallifrey Base is quite similar. I just wanted to note that they're both smaller, private communities and that they may contain content that is not intended for official release to general public and may be used by Lee and Susan as a way to ask that small group of people for opinion. And in that moment the fact that the information was released only on private channel and not on any public one IMHO becomes a certain quality of the content that we should be aware of. I wasn't trying to suggest that we should make the streams less official or less valid source of information but that we should be aware that we may have more situations like this one in future and we should be more cautious. KungWho (talk) 16:29, August 19, 2014 (UTC) Since you both seem not to be in favor of trying to establish a more general rule, I will drop that discussion (unless others jump in). @KungWho: While the atmosphere there is certainly different, I think TRG should at least be aware (and I think they are) that Adipose TV is not a private discussion or anything like that. Information that will be shared on the show will finds it way around the net, so treating it like a private source seems wrong to me, especially since they put a link to it on their public site. For example that WIP picture was posted by someone on the official forum today. Would it change anything to your position if this wasn't a Adipose-poll but a Facebook-poll? (Gallifrey Base is indeed a bit different, because technically Gallifrey Base is not public, but that hasn't anything to do with the current discussion.) ThatDWLguy (talk) 16:59, August 19, 2014 (UTC) Yes it would, facebook is an official game profile with a global range. Putting something there is more or less binding in my opinion. Adicast while it's not a completely closed community is a far more isolated one. I think that they're aware that it's not private, as everything will be shared (Gallifrey Base is not free from that either), but due to that atmosphere they're more likely to talk about things that they only think about, things they consider, things they would like to do but are not greenlit yet and ask people for ideas and opinions. They're not announcements but more private stuff like that. For example, on the adicast we heard that they're in talks with Kylie, on official channels we will get that info after everything will be set and done, because she may say "no" after all. So we're not going everywhere saying that she will be in game, because we don't know for sure. We're not saying that the pink characters are coming to game only because Lee said that they may do them in future. And the situation with WIP is similar. We've seen something but we know it will change quite a bit, because people didn't liked it. And I'm not saying that we should definitely cut anything that is happening there, but that we should be aware that more questionable content that is neither completely confirmed or finished and thus in need to be discussed before publication may appear there. KungWho (talk) 07:35, August 20, 2014 (UTC) I can understand why to not list the examples you gave: because that is only speculation. Lee didn't say that it will happen, but only that they are thinking about/see if it can work. And even if they (for whatever reason) posted that ("that" as in "the exact same information") to other channels, that wouldn't change my opinion. (And after thinking about it this way, I would change my opinion to the disallow WIP side) Maybe we should put an emphases about confirmed content and discard any "we have shared some information, but we aren't sure it will or will not happen in this or any other form"-stuff. So just adding that we are not interested to do any speculation? (That at least seems extremely reasonable to me, because I think we shouldn't deal with speculative information.) ThatDWLguy (talk) 08:18, August 20, 2014 (UTC)